I don't think multipoint light metering would be the way. After all you have 20 million light meters in your sensor! Why not perform a super-quick underexposed shot at high ISO prior to the real shot, analysing the RAW file obtained in that preliminary shot, and then adjust exposure settings to obtain the perfect ETTR in the final shot? even some intelligence could be applied in the algorithm, such as spatial clipped pattern recognition (e.g. the circle of the sun or artificial lamps on indoor and night shooting, specular reflections,...).

The problem here is of course that you need double mirror action in this case. Now, if your camera has Sony style liveview (as in the A300/A350) with an extra sensor, than it would suddenly be easy to do -- perhaps we'll see ETTR exposure mode after all

The simple lesson to be learned from this is to bias your exposures so that the histogram is snugged up to the right, but not to the point that the highlights are blown. This can usually be seen by the flashing alert on most camera review screens. Just back off so that the flashing stops.

Now of course when you look at the RAW file in your favourite RAW processing software, like Camera RAW, the image will likely appear to be too light. That's OK. Just use the available sliders to change the brightness level and contrast so that the data is spread out appropriately and the image looks "right". This will accomplish a number of things. The first is that it will maximize the signal to noise ratio. The second is that it will minimize the posterization and noise that potentially occurs in the darker regions of the image.

- ETTR shouldn't actually be an extra metering mode, but a new exposure calculation mode. So it could work in parallel to preexisting metering philosophies. For example ETTR + spot metering would mean you want to expose the metered point as much as possible right before clipping it.

This implementation with the spot mode could be very useful indeed!

On the other hand, I don't see as well an ETTR calculation based on the center-weighted average. But that's just why we pay some good money to camera makers, to elegantly resolve these kind of things - for the moment we're working in their place, unpaid!

And about names, I think the "Expose to the Right" has been enough debated to keep its name, even if I'm also more on the "clipping protection" side.This subject is debated from time to time on french forums and I'm bewildered about how many photographers just look at the middle tones as (beginners) in the old chemical days and don't pay any attention to clipping, and then complaining that their digital camera doesn't handle highlights well enough (this example, if you read french, is much less caricatural but still to the point : the debate started with an advanced amateur who associated ETTR with partial color clipping - hey guys ETTR is crap! ). It's fair to say that in France, good technical information is quite scarce, and as many frenchmen are really poor at any foreign language, that hinders them to seek the information where it is - namely on english-speaking resources like here.Even within these restrictions, I think that such a feature would indeed make many people progress, allowing them to realize that 18% grey is a thing of the past regarding raw exposure metering.Call me an optimistic if you want, but hoping for camera makers to release such a innovative thing is also optimism, isn't it?

On the other hand, I don't see as well an ETTR calculation based on the center-weighted average.

Exactly. My thinking was, that with ETTR, you more or less have a fixed exposure, so appying ETTR on top of *every* metering mode would not make much sense - or I cant see it. But on the other hand, being optionally able to set the brightest point with spot-like metering (being able not to rely on the built-in algorithm) would be a very good thing too. I think it could boil down to a multi mode ETTR, fully automatic, maximum tolerable clipped area, and manual brightest point with spot metering. That said I still think it would be quite practical as a new metering mode. But I also dont want to start splitting hairs now since we are not the ones to decide such things anyway. It was just interesting for me to hear something more specific about possible implementations.

Regards

Christian

//edit: Maybe RICOH or Olympus or Phase One would implement such modes first... somehow I cant imagine seeing it on Canon for the next say 10 years or so.

1-The camera should optionally make a second, "ZeroNoise", exposure in rapid succession to the main exposure, 1...4 EVs above ETTR, at my discretion. (Always using 4 EVs might increase exposure time too much, and even just 1 EV is of visible benefit)

The problem here is of course that you need double mirror action in this case.

For many photographers 'one shot' involves taking many photographs. Right now we shoot-chimp-adjust until exposure etc look right then fire many frames at the same setting. On Canon 1D cameras there are (I think) seven or eight exposure-related controls on the camera: control dials, AE lock, shooting mode, exposure bias, etc. Being able to set one of these controls to make an ETTR pre-exposure when pressed would seem to be a 'simple' thing. And useful.

As a matter of interest the original 1Ds had a two stage hyperfocal point (depth of field) focusing aid. Not on the current versions.

Both RAW histograms and ETTR would be a sell point for me if the camera had it.

Others:

Auto ISO where it is possible to set it to 1/focal length (with + and - adjustability too)

Radio trigger that passes TTL info to remote flashes that is built into the body, no more IR line of sight with popup flash to trigger rubbish

DOF mode: focus on the near *push button* focus on far *push button* camera autofocuses on correct focus point and selects correct aperture for sufficient DOF. Camera also displays total DOF and near/far distances - circle of confusion can be changed by the user. Of course, they could just put depth of field markings and distance scales on all lenses again

Camera analyses a high contrast scene and displays the scene brightness in stops, then shoots requisite frames in succession and performs raw file fusion done in camera a la the zero noise technique thread

Camera detects how much it has been moved on a tripod between frames and tags the data to the RAW file for use with stitching programs for perfect stitches (perhaps a little ambitious!)

Both RAW histograms and ETTR would be a sell point for me if the camera had it.

Others:

Auto ISO where it is possible to set it to 1/focal length (with + and - adjustability too)

Radio trigger that passes TTL info to remote flashes built into the body, no more IR line of sight with popup flash rubbish

DOF mode: focus on the near *push button* focus on far *push button* camera autofocuses on correct focus point and selects correct aperture for sufficient DOF. Camera also displays total DOF and near/far distances - circle of confusion can be changed by the user. Of course, they could just put depth of field markings and distance scales on all lenses again

Camera analyses a high contrast scene and displays the scene brightness in stops, then shoots requisite frames in succession and performs raw file fusion done in camera a la the zero noise technique thread

Camera detects how much it has been moved on a tripod between frames and tags the data to the RAW file for use with stitching programs for perfect stitches (perhaps a little ambitious!)

Interesting thread. I'd love an EttR mode, especially one which rendered the preview and even the jpeg based on that. Biggest thing on my wish list right now however is a 20mp+ dSLR without any AA filters ... I think the pixel density is sufficient that for many shooters they just won't have a moire problem. I guess they'd have to make 2 versions since people photographers would still probably have issues.

The really annoying thing is that these features probably wouldn't even require any new hardware, just some software changes. They wouldn't cost any money once the software had been written. It might be a few weeks work for a competent programmer. The "Direct Print" button on the original 5D would have cost more money, and it was about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

The reduced pixel count on the G11 gives me cause for hope. It shows that manufacturers do sometimes listen to what serious photographers want, eventually.

would it be a crazy idea to register some domain, something like: www.listentoyourcustomers.com expressing these ideas in a clear way, with the possibility for digital camera users of signing up? Something like that was done to improve the 5D2 video features I think.

BTW I wrote michael a PM about the possibility of an official article in the LL some weeks ago and had no response.

would it be a crazy idea to register some domain, something like: www.listentoyourcustomers.com expressing these ideas in a clear way, with the possibility for digital camera users of signing up? Something like that was done to improve the 5D2 video features I think.

BTW I wrote michael a PM about the possibility of an official article in the LL some weeks ago and had no response.

That would be sad, as ETTR is just the opposite of highlight protection

In my mind, it's just ideal exposure. For raw. And yes, I'd love to see a histogram and meter that takes into account the kind of data we are capturing. ETTR is a term that should probably go away. It implies that this is some trick or adjustment when it's just optimally exposing data, in this case raw data, not a JPEG.

In my mind, it's just ideal exposure. For raw. And yes, I'd love to see a histogram and meter that takes into account the kind of data we are capturing. ETTR is a term that should probably go away. It implies that this is some trick or adjustment when it's just optimally exposing data, in this case raw data, not a JPEG.

Those who enjoy using the Magic Lantern firmware have had RAW histograms (and auto-ettr mode) available for the last month or two. And they work very well indeed. They're available on the 5d3 and some other Canon SLRs.

Those who enjoy using the Magic Lantern firmware have had RAW histograms (and auto-ettr mode) available for the last month or two. And they work very well indeed. They're available on the 5d3 and some other Canon SLRs.

Very cool, just checked out the video's and the site. And the price is right! Considering downloading for my 5DMII but of course, one worries a bit about doing this. Any downside? They say thousands of people have used it without harm.

As far as I'm aware there have been no recent reports of problems. The firmware doesn't overwrite the Canon firmware, instead it gets loaded on each startup from the card and runs as a separate process in the camera CPU. I'm not sure if the release version has all of this but the most recent nightly builds do. I've been running the 5d3 dev version for months, updating almost daily without issues.

As far as I'm aware there have been no recent reports of problems. The firmware doesn't overwrite the Canon firmware, instead it gets loaded on each startup from the card and runs as a separate process in the camera CPU. I'm not sure if the release version has all of this but the most recent nightly builds do. I've been running the 5d3 dev version for months, updating almost daily without issues.

Works like CHDK for compact cameras, but sadly RAW histogram is not available with CHDK

That is a great point that I've never head anyone say. Why are we using the term ETTR when what we are really discussing is Normal exposure for Raw?

It seems to me there should be some way to comletely decouple a jpeg workflow from a raw workflow in the camera software with raw histogram at the top of the list. They should have histograms for both.

At least in the higher end models I don't understand why they haven't done this.

In my mind, it's just ideal exposure. For raw. And yes, I'd love to see a histogram and meter that takes into account the kind of data we are capturing. ETTR is a term that should probably go away. It implies that this is some trick or adjustment when it's just optimally exposing data, in this case raw data, not a JPEG.